Two criteria qualify a religion:
1. Make absolute proclamations of ‘fact’ which cannot be tested for falsification under the Scientific Method, and
2. Make adherence to the proclamation mandatory in order to be considered acceptable (rational in this context).

Atheism contends that nothing exists outside of naturalism, even though we have no way to test much of that proclamation’s veracity. Atheism considers all outsiders to be irrational. Agnosticism does neither. All of this has nothing to do with Deities.

Atheism contends that there is no god, plain and simple. Many atheists just happen to have a naturalistic worldview. Are we to structurally define a position by what only a segment of atheists believe?

Furthermore, your contention that atheists consider all outsiders as irrational is just an ad hominem attack on atheists; it has nothing at all to do with the position of atheism. Your criteria are mere mischaracterizations of people, not positions.

– Agnosticism doesn’t need to be religious. But most agnostics are, in that they state the theological, unsupportable claim that science and religion are orthogonal claims (NOMA).

– Atheists are not religious in general, and in fact no one has, to my knowledge, been able to find atheists that hold to atheism as a belief no matter what. Atheists can in general state up front what would empirically make them change their mind, for example solid evidence for religious magic.

Most atheists are of the “lack of evidence for gods” type. Everything else alike the onus is on the godbotherers to show evidence for their claims. If not, religious claims can be provisionally rejected out of hand.

Some modern atheists are of the “evidence for physicalism” type. Enough testable facts and theories are now collected to test if physicalism, that everything existing is natural processes, is a fact.* That means provisionally, as all other facts, accepting that observation tells us one reason among similar why science is so successful, like uniformity, is physicalism.** Or lack of magic, as regards religious claims.

*While no one has done the legwork yet, a simple estimate shows that this happened sometime in the 70’s – 80’s.

** Note that it didn’t have to be. It is but an observational fact, same as the uniformity of laws and universal parameters throughout the observable universe.

That same logic can be used to exonerate Christianity as a religion then.

Christianity contends that there is a God, plain and simple. Many Christians just happen to have a preter-naturalistic worldview. Are we to structurally define a position by what only a segment of Christians believe?

Furthermore, your contention that Christians consider all outsiders as hell-bound is just an ad hominem attack on Christians; it has nothing at all to do with the position of Christianity. Your criteria are mere mischaracterizations of people, not positions.

note: ad hominem means ‘to the man’ and is not applicable when critiquing a group with an in context criticism. Otherwise, we could never critique anyone, Nazi’s, KKK’ers, etc….cuz we can’t attack ’em

Christianity has a whole tome of dogmas which dictates specific qualities of a god, what happens to outsiders, who to have sex with, how to have sex, how to handle your dead, what to do on Sunday, how to properly handle your slaves, how to keep your wife in check, how to properly sacrifice an animal, etc. Atheism has no dogma, no scripture, no revelation.

We structurally define Christianity, of course, by the doctrines that define what they believe. Again, atheism is not analogous to this.

The argument that Christians view outsiders as hell-bound is a specific belief outlined in their doctrine. You have misunderstood this point to be an ad hominem attack, which is a logical fallacy which says that someone is incorrect because of some personal attribute that you view as undesirable.

Note: an ad hominem attack can of course apply to groups. A logical fallacy is a just that, a fallacy of logic in argument. Here’s an example: The Nazi’s are wrong about the best way to run a military operation because they are immoral. There you go. Just because they were immoral does not mean that they are wrong about how best to run a military operation; that is a logical fallacy.

I agree, I’m sure not that you understand what ad hominem means, so let’s move on.

1. The claim that god does not exist is (usually) based upon the destruction of common claims of religious metaphysics by science. No atheist that I have met would claim 100% certainty in any claim, and neither do I. By your characterization, everything that is not empirical is religion. While it is true that many religions make untestable claims, the definition of a religion is not based on this criterion.

If we consult a dictionary:

Religion:

the service and worship of God or the supernatural
commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices

Atheism does not fit any one of these definitions. By definition, either philosophical or colloquial, your claim is incorrect.

2. You are not considered an atheist if you do not adopt the claim. That’s all.

Yeah, agreed my contention of ‘ethics’ is a step beyond what social structures are willing to accept. That is my contention. I disagree with much of society on that point – my purpose is to distinguish skeptics from those who are simply angry at Christianity, and who simply jumped into Atheism as a reaction, when they should have sought a psychologist instead, in order to help work out that anger. Stepping into a belief as a reaction to a hated belief, is in my opinion, an unethical action. Especially then if you force that latter new belief on others.

The dictionary definition you provide indeed fits Atheism well. Agnosticism, is the action set of not ‘adopting such claims.’ Not Atheism. Atheism is the full-blown immersion into a set of “institutional beliefs” and is fully accommodated in the dictionary’s framing here. It is simply a different set of ‘personalized or institutional beliefs.’

As to the inclusion or excommunication of those who are religious naturalists inside or outside of Atheism, that is something that Atheists will have to work out and in-doctrine into their ‘set of official institutional beliefs’ on their own. Otherwise, outsiders will continue to include nihilists and religious naturalists – as Atheists. Either they define their ‘belief set’ it, or it will be defined for them. Can’t have it both ways, otherwise the logical inconsistency of both being a religion, and claiming to NOT be a religion at the same time, becomes glaring.

This ‘OFF’ versus ‘Channel’ definition then leaves no contextual room for Agnosticism then logically. In that metaphor, there is no such thing as Agnosticism, and only Atheism is sensible. It is a one-liner.

Similarly, the definitions of dogma and ad hominem you employ, are not resolvable in application, but rather inconsistent spoon-fed academic definitions. I would encourage you to think more deeply into this, than the published SSkeptic propaganda.

Your definitions of atheism and agnosticism are wrong. Atheism simply implies disbelief in a god. An atheist can say: “I don’t believe in god, but I’m not 100% sure that god doesn’t exist”, without contradiction.
Agnosticism is a position on the possibility of knowledge about god. An agnostic says that it’s impossible to know whether there’s a god. It can be, at the same time, an atheist (i don’t believe in god but i think it’s impossible to know for sure whether it exists), a theist (i believe in god but i think it’s impossible to know for sure whether it exists) or someone that didn’t reach a conclusion about believing and thinks it’s impossible to know about god. Having no evidence to back this up, i would say that a significant part of the agnostics are atheists (don’t believe in god), and choose to be called agnostics for two reasons: mistaken definitions and refusal to take a position in the god debate (sometimes motivated by not wanting to be tarred with the negatively charged atheist label).
Of course atheism is not synonym of rationality, and the lack of atheism doesn’t imply irrationality. It’s possible that some atheists may think that, but it’s not something you must accept to be an atheist.
That true skeptic thing seems to me very patronizing.
(BTW what is the SSkeptic propaganda?)

I don’t think that it is a Fibonacci spiral, just a line connecting the points for visualization. As you said, I think the only way to graph the sequence would be to introduce it in a form of a function with at least X and Y coordinates (otherwise it is just a spiral that is not itself laid out by the sequence but rather is made up of arcs connecting the opposite corners of squares).

Follow Blog by Email

About the Author

Kyle Hill is a science writer and communicator who specializes in finding the secret science in your favorite fandom. His work has appeared in Wired, The Boston Globe, Scientific American, Popular Science, Discover Magazine, and more. He is a TV correspondent for Al Jazeera America's science and technology show TechKnow.